Do these combat manuevers seem balanced?

[Goolpsy]

The nerf seems more reasonably, and i only meant Lose dex vs the ignored target, not everyone^^

now its more reasonable in general, but theres still the rogue issue Maybe buff it abit, but giving the rogue a pecentage of chance to still use it at his advantage, hence gaining sneak attack...

More or less like the Fortification Enchantments to armors
but i dunno, jsut a suggestion

 

[Beholder Bob]

Rogues should still be able to Sneak Attack if they are having Ignore Foe used against them.

It says they are treated as Invisible, correct? You don't get your Dex bonus against Invisible creatures, do you?

Unless I am missing something.

Joe is attacked by a rogue and a fighter. He ignores the fighter to protect himself from the rogue doing sneak attacks. This means he is flat footed vs the fighter, nor does he threaten the fighter. The fighter proceeds to either: full power attack, perform trips or disarms (since he doesn't provoke an AOO), etc. When the fighter hits Joe, the rogue gets an AOO vs Joe as well.

Ouch.

Now, if Joe was flanked by a fighter and a summoned celestial rabbit, he could ignore the rabbit, be flat footed vs it, but unless the rabbit hits him, he suffers no other effects.

BB

 

[ZuulMoG]

Ok, now I see where this this Ignore Foe bruhaha is stemming from. I take it people are using Summoned wusses to flank targets so the party rogues can sneak attack?

The Lollipop Guild would love these guys.

Use the Armor as Damage Reduction Option, and rule that any creature that can't do enough damage on a normal hit to beat the DR of a target's armor is not considered to threaten him, whether he faces it or not.

Should my players ever attempt to pull this crap on me, I'll nerf it so fast their heads will spin. Every kobold, orc, and wolf will have drow fullplate that disintegrates on contact with sunlight or something.

Sneak attacks are done from behind, not from up front. The rogue circles around while the party keeps the foes busy, and stikes from the other side of the melee. Using SMs to do this violates the spirit of the rogue combat style in a way that makes me wonder why the person that thought it up even plays D&D.

 

[RandomPrecision]

Unless I am missing something.

I think you are - you wouldn't ignore the rogue to prevent sneak attacks, you'd ignore the other creature and focus fully on the rogue to avoid being sneak attacked.

 

[Beholder Bob]

I ignore the fighter since the rogue scares me...

You ignore the fighter and attack the rogue, who does a feint that round. The fighter, his feelings hurt for being ignored, smacks the hell out of you (uh-oh, full power attack, +BA damage to each attack, unless he’s fighting 2 handed…). Since you were hit by the fighter, you provoke an AOO from the rogue - oh crap, he did a feint, so add in some sneak attack goodness! That and any other combatants fighting this guy get extra attacks....

Ignoring a dangerous foe to avoid the flank is a quick way to die - unless the guy you ignore is the torch bearer (and even then, wouldn't it suck to be tripped by a 1st level commoner... or disarmed, grappled, bull rushed, or smacked on the head with a torch...)

It is intended to be a useful tactic, but not the end-all of maneuvers. I'd use it sparingly.

BB

 

[Felnar]

I'm pretty set on Ingnore Attacker, though I'm happy with the idea of nerfing it further. It already makes the fellow flat footed against the ignored target, opening them up to a slew of manuevers... I could replace each round you continue to ignored a foe inflicting damage to you, you suffer a -1 to hit and AC against foes you are not ignoring. with you provoke an AOO from non-ignored foes whenever you are struck for damage by the foe you are ignoring. That should be a pretty strong nerf, though perhaps too strong....
BB

when i first read "ignore Attacker" i thought it should give the ignored attacker an AoO each round they are ignored. Thats what i'd use instead of the AoOs when damaged.

 

[Quickleaf]

Cool manuevers! I especially like "death from above"

I think "Jump for Cover" needs some editing....

Jump for Cover: sacrifice your next standard action and fall prone in order to reduce damage from a melee attack in ½. You take full damage unless you succeed in a Reflex save against the attacker’s roll to hit roll. On a failed roll, you take full damage, lose your next standard action, and are still prone. As a side effect of this action, whether you succeed or not, you may make a 5’ move out of turn.

Reduce damage from a melee attack by jumping? The manuever actually works more like rolling with a punch than jumping for cover. If you are trying to create a manuever which reflecting jumping for cover, I would replace this with ranged attacks, and allow the damage to be avoided altogether (instead of reduced by 1/2).

An archer spots a prisoner trying to escape the same time the prisoner sees the archer. The archer takes a shot, and the prisoner jumps for cover behind a tree. He makes a successful Reflex save and avoids the hit. However, he is prone and loses his next standard action.

 

[Goolpsy]

Should my players ever attempt to pull this crap on me, I'll nerf it so fast their heads will spin. Every kobold, orc, and wolf will have drow fullplate that disintegrates on contact with sunlight or something.

Sneak attacks are done from behind, not from up front. The rogue circles around while the party keeps the foes busy, and stikes from the other side of the melee. Using SMs to do this violates the spirit of the rogue combat style in a way that makes me wonder why the person that thought it up even plays D&D.

U seriously mean what you just wrote? Damn im joyous you're not my DM...

Player Creativity is what its all about, all about having fun, Imagine you're this crazy dude doing wacky stuff, Combat options should give new opportunities to be creative... not take it away. Thats why i don't like the ***Ignoring Foe***

Sure rogues can be strong if used correctly, but what is worst; some weird spell + CDG or 10d6 Damage?

By the way disintegrate got edited from 3.0 to 3.5 that combo or spell + CDG should be at least 30d6 Dice worth..
So sneak attack isn't that imbalanced. And Remember... summoning a little Rat cost a turn, which could have been used to Cast Spells such as Disintegrate, Heavy damaging spells, or even worse ones.
And for the waste of 1 turn to summon a creature to flank the opponent, The rogue would have to be in melee combat, hence the BBEG could just kill him (Rogues are far more effective with a Bow 30 feet away)

Really, are you sure u aren't just making this, a much bigger problem than it is?

 

[Beholder Bob]

...I think "Jump for Cover" needs some editing....

Ach! Your correct, of course! The original maneuver was to reduce damage from area of effect spells & drop damage from a blow - but I felt the maneuver far too powerful. I kept reducing it, to this point, where its name is the only reminder of what the initial intent was. I think roll with the blow would be a better name, so consider it changed!

BB

 

[the Jester]

Joe is attacked by a rogue and a fighter. He ignores the fighter to protect himself from the rogue doing sneak attacks. This means he is flat footed vs the fighter, nor does he threaten the fighter. The fighter proceeds to either: full power attack, perform trips or disarms (since he doesn't provoke an AOO), etc. When the fighter hits Joe, the rogue gets an AOO vs Joe as well.

The problem is, the fighter doesn't need the bonus. It doesn't really make him all that much more effective. He's far more likely to full Power Attack than to try a trip or disarm; or, if he's optimized for tripping, he has Improved Trip anyway.

Maneuvers that allow you to ignore an attacker not only nerf rogues, they nerf assassins as well.

I maintain that such a maneuver is unbalancing and makes it nigh-worthless to play a combat-focused rogue.